[From Kenny Kitzke (2001.11.17 EST)]
<Bill Williams 15 November 2001 11:00 CST>
<Two years ago in Boston you made a statement which I initially understood
to assert that secular people had no values. When I asked if this was what
you meant you explained, if a remember correctly, that what you meant was
that secularists didn't have absolute values. I assumed at the time that
you were implicitly asserting that secularists had relative as opposed to
absolute values. But, I didn't feel it the time or place to take up what
was your time on stage to argue that there are alternatives other than
absolute or relative constructions of experience, value, life and what
have you.>
I take it that what was said and thought then by you and I is not your main
purpose? I assume you which to explore further the concept of people holding
absolute values versus relative values and how it fits with PCT. Is that a
correct assumption?
I recall some discussion of absolute and relative values on CSGNet. I do not
wish to rehash the same material available in the archives, unless you would
like to do that.
IAE, you posited an alternative. Perhaps reaction to your alternative
concept is all you really want? And, the following is my reaction.
<The instrumental conception of value, logic and experience
advocated by John Dewey provides a method for considering the fundamental
questions of existence in terms which a number of inquirers have noted
bears a close resemblence to control theory. ( Before I go any further
I want to say that when Jim STurgeon recently asked me-- actually I
think he intended it as an assertion framed as question whether or not
I thought Dewey's _Human Nature and Conduct_ was still an adaquate text
my answer was no. )>
I have not studied what John Dewey advocates about anything, including Human
Nature and Conduct. Since you do not think it is an adequate text anyway, I
won't spend my time studying it in order to respond to you.
<But, there is a connection between an instrumental
conception of value and experience and control theory. Slack in the
Psych Rev 1957 I think draws a connection between Dewey's treatment of
the Reflex ARc and control theory. So does George Richardson in his
Feedback Theory in Social Science.>
Again, I am not familiar with their premises and connections. But I do think
there is a connection between the values people hold, their personal
experience in life and PCT. I am happy to dialogue with you about that on
CSGNet. My caveat is that if you want to talk about _my_ personal values,
life experience and its connection to PCT, we do that privately. Is that
okay with you?
<With prolonging this further, I'd
like to point out that I aggree with Ken that relativism as a guide to
behavior has some grave difficulties. But, the choice is not limited
between absolutism and relativism, there are other, and I think better
conceptions.>
I think that both a concept of relative and absolute values can produce
perceptual difficulties for people. It seems evident to me. So, instead of
rehashing such reference conceptual variables that people might control for,
I am interested in the better choice you conceive. Please present and
explain it.
Goes without saying, Darwinians of any kind don't impress or concern me
much.
<Evidently, however, they concern you sufficiently to assert that "they don't
impress or concern me much." For many of us Darwin's work represents a
crucial turning point in man's understanding of the world around him. I'm
not interested myself in aping Sinclair Lewis, or Huxley in using Darwin as a
text to assult religion. I am, however, concerned when religious beliefs are
used to impead the teaching in public schools of whaat I regard as modern
biology. Your comment on Darwin suggests the possiblity that we might differ
in regard to this issue. Without opening a new battle in the warfare between
science and religion would you care to extend your comment?>
That was a throw away line make in jest simply indicating that it seems to me
that the perception of Christians is generally that they do not find the
arguments to support Darwin's theory of evolution very convincing. And,
since I am perceived as a Christian, I too am not generally very concerned
with or impressed much by the assertions they make. I _did not_ intend with
the throw away line to get into a discussion of Darwinian theory (or
neo-Darwinian theory, whatever that really is) or those who accept such
theories or find them useful on this CSGNet. I think such dialogue has been
held before on CSGNet and I don't recall participating much in the past.
I too suspect we might differ on this issue and what should be taught in
public schools regarding theories about the origins of man, but I have no
strong interest in trying to resolve that with you. I would, for now, rather
hear about the better concept on values people hold which you alluded to and
how it relates to our mutual interest in HPCT.
I hope my clarifications provide a sufficiently responsive answer to your
questions.
Respectfully,
Kenny